A better day
Dec. 17th, 2005 06:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksWell, stone me, a winning session. A winning couple of sessions, in fact, although the latter was so short and minor as to be irrelevant. The main gain was during the day. I came back to the room for a nap wth the intention of following the conventional wisdom and hitting the Friday late-night-drunk loose crew.
I've come to the conclusion that conventional wisdom and me do not get on. Not only did I find the hour deeply unpleasant, but, once again, I got myself on the wrong end of a three-hander and someone else's incompetence. You may recall that earlier this week I folded an AK as top-pair top kicker in a three-hander, which, it transpired, would have won. This time round I had QK in the small blind. I complete after four limpers, and the big blind, who has been playing damned near anything as far as I can see, checks. $24 in pot.
Board brings 866 rainbow and it's checked round. Turn brings a Queen and I bet. Big Blind raises me. One other player calls. My instincts here are that I am against a Queen wth a lower kicker and a lower pair. In other words, I think that I am in front. But the cost if I am wrong is too great. I flat call. $48 in pot
River brings a third six. I check. Big blind bets. Middle position raises! What do I do? I can't see how MP has a six. Once again, I really feel as if I am either tying three-way or two-way. I call. Big blind reraises. I have a sinking feeling. MP calls and I call. Big Blind shows 69 off for four sixes. MP shows, wait for it, QT off. Four sixes rakes in $116.
Now, the conventional wisdom is that I should welcome bad play like this (the QT off, not the 69. He played it fine) because I will benefit from it as often as I suffer from it. As I said, I don't think that conventional wisdom and me get on. First, I seem to have an uncanny knack of getting these three-wayers wrong, folding when I should hang around and calling when I should fold. The obvious reason for this is that I hardly ever encounter the situation in Internet games. Therefore it makes sense for me to avoid them, for the moment, in live ones. Secondly, the "you gain as often as you lose" argument ignores the fact that, at least occasionally, you wll be up against collusion. If colluders can hide behind that fact that "incompetent players do it" then your net position may be minus EV if you stay in late-night games where this happens.
The other reason that I don't get on with late-night games is that the sleazebags come out. I think that more cheating goes on at this time. The games slow down. Volatility goes through the roof. My hourly rate may be slightly higher late at night, but it just isn't worth the grief. I am, I suspect, a daytime player at heart.
So, I left that game with a $22 profit (later, I actually won a three-wayer, hanging around with A4 against a bettor and raiser on the turn, when the board showed A37Q). Both checked the river and mucked rapidly. Draw your own conclusions.)
++++
The earlier, longer, daytime session was very up-and-down, but ended with a $110 profit. I followed the line of boosting the pot from late position or the blinds whenever I thought that I had marginal pot equity against a number of opponents. Here's one that went wrong, and another that went right.
In the BB I get AK off. Five players limp and the small blind completes. I raise. $48 in pot. Board brings Ace-Jack-Five rainbow. I bet. I get two callers. $60 in pot. Turn brings the Ten of diamonds, putting two diamonds on board. I bet. Two callers. $84 in pot. River brings the six of diamonds. I check, button (an old guy, mainly passive), springs to life and raises. I insta-fold. The other player hums and hahhs and eventually calls with a shrug. "I'm probably losing", he said. Old guy turns over, yes, Ace-Seven, for a pair of Aces with a Jack kicker. Oh no, I thought, not again. Luckily, initial bettor had Ace-Six for two pair and won $112 pot. So, they had six outs between them when I bet on the turn. I was getting 2-to-1 on a 1-to-5 shot.
These marginal raises pre-flop are usually bets where you are something like 25% to win but are getting odds of five or six to one. Here's a typical example that went right. I get 88 on the button. Five limpers. I raise and, amazingly, small blind and big blind fold. Other players call. $51 in pot. Flop brings 965 two clubs. Checked to me. I bet. Three callers. $63 in pot. TUrn brings two of spades, putting two spades and two clubs on board. I bet, three callers. $87 in pot. River brings two of diamonds. Checked round. I show my eights. They win. Small blind sighs. Obviously he would have had the best hand if he had stayed in (whch he would have, had I not raised pre-flop). The other plus factor was that a couple of the players on the other side of the table clearly thought I was a loose-aggressive maniac for playing "just a pair of eights" that way.
It doesn't take much knowledge of mathematics to see that, in even a long session of live low limit hold'em, you are only likely to get three or four hands of this kind of situation, where much of your overall "profit" is to be gained. Since you are odds against to win for each individual event, it's fairly obvious that you can, without much trouble, "run bad" for a very long time.
++++
I've come to the conclusion that conventional wisdom and me do not get on. Not only did I find the hour deeply unpleasant, but, once again, I got myself on the wrong end of a three-hander and someone else's incompetence. You may recall that earlier this week I folded an AK as top-pair top kicker in a three-hander, which, it transpired, would have won. This time round I had QK in the small blind. I complete after four limpers, and the big blind, who has been playing damned near anything as far as I can see, checks. $24 in pot.
Board brings 866 rainbow and it's checked round. Turn brings a Queen and I bet. Big Blind raises me. One other player calls. My instincts here are that I am against a Queen wth a lower kicker and a lower pair. In other words, I think that I am in front. But the cost if I am wrong is too great. I flat call. $48 in pot
River brings a third six. I check. Big blind bets. Middle position raises! What do I do? I can't see how MP has a six. Once again, I really feel as if I am either tying three-way or two-way. I call. Big blind reraises. I have a sinking feeling. MP calls and I call. Big Blind shows 69 off for four sixes. MP shows, wait for it, QT off. Four sixes rakes in $116.
Now, the conventional wisdom is that I should welcome bad play like this (the QT off, not the 69. He played it fine) because I will benefit from it as often as I suffer from it. As I said, I don't think that conventional wisdom and me get on. First, I seem to have an uncanny knack of getting these three-wayers wrong, folding when I should hang around and calling when I should fold. The obvious reason for this is that I hardly ever encounter the situation in Internet games. Therefore it makes sense for me to avoid them, for the moment, in live ones. Secondly, the "you gain as often as you lose" argument ignores the fact that, at least occasionally, you wll be up against collusion. If colluders can hide behind that fact that "incompetent players do it" then your net position may be minus EV if you stay in late-night games where this happens.
The other reason that I don't get on with late-night games is that the sleazebags come out. I think that more cheating goes on at this time. The games slow down. Volatility goes through the roof. My hourly rate may be slightly higher late at night, but it just isn't worth the grief. I am, I suspect, a daytime player at heart.
So, I left that game with a $22 profit (later, I actually won a three-wayer, hanging around with A4 against a bettor and raiser on the turn, when the board showed A37Q). Both checked the river and mucked rapidly. Draw your own conclusions.)
++++
The earlier, longer, daytime session was very up-and-down, but ended with a $110 profit. I followed the line of boosting the pot from late position or the blinds whenever I thought that I had marginal pot equity against a number of opponents. Here's one that went wrong, and another that went right.
In the BB I get AK off. Five players limp and the small blind completes. I raise. $48 in pot. Board brings Ace-Jack-Five rainbow. I bet. I get two callers. $60 in pot. Turn brings the Ten of diamonds, putting two diamonds on board. I bet. Two callers. $84 in pot. River brings the six of diamonds. I check, button (an old guy, mainly passive), springs to life and raises. I insta-fold. The other player hums and hahhs and eventually calls with a shrug. "I'm probably losing", he said. Old guy turns over, yes, Ace-Seven, for a pair of Aces with a Jack kicker. Oh no, I thought, not again. Luckily, initial bettor had Ace-Six for two pair and won $112 pot. So, they had six outs between them when I bet on the turn. I was getting 2-to-1 on a 1-to-5 shot.
These marginal raises pre-flop are usually bets where you are something like 25% to win but are getting odds of five or six to one. Here's a typical example that went right. I get 88 on the button. Five limpers. I raise and, amazingly, small blind and big blind fold. Other players call. $51 in pot. Flop brings 965 two clubs. Checked to me. I bet. Three callers. $63 in pot. TUrn brings two of spades, putting two spades and two clubs on board. I bet, three callers. $87 in pot. River brings two of diamonds. Checked round. I show my eights. They win. Small blind sighs. Obviously he would have had the best hand if he had stayed in (whch he would have, had I not raised pre-flop). The other plus factor was that a couple of the players on the other side of the table clearly thought I was a loose-aggressive maniac for playing "just a pair of eights" that way.
It doesn't take much knowledge of mathematics to see that, in even a long session of live low limit hold'em, you are only likely to get three or four hands of this kind of situation, where much of your overall "profit" is to be gained. Since you are odds against to win for each individual event, it's fairly obvious that you can, without much trouble, "run bad" for a very long time.
++++
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Another fine mess...
Date: 2005-12-19 09:58 am (UTC)That's the second time recently you have got yourself in trouble raising with AK in the blind multi-way. I stopped raising in this situation a long time ago although in all honesty I didn't do the math to support it, it just felt right to me. My thinking was that if it came down 6-7-8 I could just pretend I had been dealt 2-3 and check fold for no charge. If, however, it came down K-T-3 my hand has plenty of deception and there are only 4-5 small bets out there and 88 or Q9 or whatever will be making a mistake playing with you. If, on the other hand, you make that raise preflop, there are now maybe 10 small bets in the pot and all of a sudden although you have potentially gained some EV with that raise, you have probably given some twit approx the correct odds (borrowing a bit of $ to come on the big streets when they hit) to call you on the flop with a speculative gutshot or similar? Then they catch a bit more on the turn (chance of a raggy 2pr and/or a backdoor flush or something) and they are still playing correctly to come with you. That's how it appeared to me anyway, happy for someone to pull that apart if it is flawed. But I certainly don't get excited nowadays with AK in the big blind (unless the button open raises of course!)